Syndication

Lawyer unhappiness: Chicken Little at law

I am glad to see that more critical thinking is being applied to the question of lawyer unhappiness. I have long been skeptical about the widespread and dire conclusion that the lawyer sky is falling. Discussion is what is needed; it continues in the blogosphere.

Are lawyers unhappy? From a scholarly perspective, one might think the question is right up there with, "Do dogs bite?" and "Is grass green?" But thanks to Jeffrey M. Lipshaw at Legal Profession Blog, we learn that legal scholars are examining the evidence -- and coming to different conclusions.

As my wife, an MPH, advised this morning, there's no way you can tell . . . whether depression-inclined people self-select to be lawyers, or being a lawyer causes or exacerbates depression. Given depression's biochemical etiology, I'd be inclined to think the seeds are there to begin with, but we may never know.

(I am curious to know how depression - and satisfaction - statistics are gathered; self-reporting can be misleading.)

John P. Heinz, Kathleen E. Hull, and Ava H. Harter, "Lawyers and their Discontents: Findings from a Survey of the Chicago Bar," 74 Indiana Law Journal 735 (1999), which found that lawyers were no unhappier than any other profession or job.

So, lawyers -- including those poorly paid at the bottom of the hierarchy and those competing fiercely in the highly structured mega-firms at the top -- are unhappy, right? Contrary to that well established notion, which has received so much attention in recent years, the answer is “no.”

“One of the most striking findings is the generally high level of satisfaction reported by all categories of lawyers, a result that is clearly at variance with the common wisdom,” Heinz says.

In somewhat of a paradox, women report the same degree of overall job satisfaction as do men despite being less satisfied with most specific aspects of their work. Over time, most people find their way to satisfactory jobs. If they are unhappy, they leave.

In their first big look at
Chicago's legal profession, Heinz and University of Chicago Professor
Edward O. Laumann found that lawyers serving corporate clients and
those working for individuals and small businesses inhabited two
distinct hemispheres. The lawyers from the two hemispheres seldom, if
ever, crossed the equator, the researchers concluded from their 1975
survey of Chicago lawyers.

The new book, “Urban Lawyers,” is
based on another American Bar Foundation survey conducted in 1994/95,
20 years later. The book concludes that the divide between the two sets
of lawyers continues to widen--to an extent that the two-hemispheres
metaphor doesn't even work any more.

The two parts are
distinguished by substantial differences in socioeconomic and
ethno-religious backgrounds, education credentials, social networks,
prestige and incomes.

“In 1975, the two-hemispheres metaphor was appropriate, because the two sets of lawyers were roughly the same size,” says Heinz.

“But
by the mid-1990s the corporate area of practice had become more than
twice as big as the personal and small business sector of Chicago
lawyers. And the difference between those making the most and the least
money is striking. Income for those doing corporate work at the big
firms is going like gangbusters, while it is declining for those in
solo practice.”

The book looked not only at the Chicago bar as is pointed out in the article.

The
“Urban Lawyers” researchers not only compare the 1975 and 1995 data to
illustrate the dramatic transformation of the Chicago bar that took
place at the end of the 20th century, they also draw on leading
research that offers a sweeping look at the legal profession as a
whole, going back to “the golden age” associated with stable
partnerships with lifetime tenure.

Have you read Urban Lawyers? If so, I would appreciate knowing your thoughts about the book.

Note (added September 24, 2007, 5:05 PM Mountain): For an excellent graphic representation of the division of the profession mentioned above, be sure to see Rob Millard's America's Two Legal Professions.

Comments

You say, "I am curious to know how depression - and satisfaction - statistics are gathered; self-reporting can be misleading."

True, especially misleading when perhaps one is not able or willing to tell one's self the truth, never mind reporting out to the survey folks.

Depression is defined as "anger turned within." So, maybe it might be well for folks to begin to ask themselves, "What am I angry about?" really, really, and see what one comes up with.

As a coach, another place I might suggest the exploration begin is by looking at the degree to which one is/is not in harmony with one's self.

How? By looking at the alignment, congruence and connection, or misalignment, incongruity and disconnection between what one (1) thinks, (2) feels, (3)says and (4) does with respect to who one is, and how one is, in one's life and one's life at work.

With dis-harmony, comes unhappiness and a lack of balance, a mind-body-emotion-spirit dis-equilibrium that leads to an inability to make wise choices about what one wants, how one wants to be, what values are really important, how one chooses to live (or not) one's values, and what's meaningful at work, etc., and in one's life. The result of disharmonmy and imbalance is a low-grade-fever-type of malaise, agitation, frustration and unhappiness that is often described as "depression."

For me, just me, in my work which includes coaching lawyers, the deal is to explore why one is unhappy, and, then, unhappy in one's work as a lawyer, not the other way aroud. What core values, core needs are going unmet and why are they unmet at work?

And, then, why then do I choose to allow this mis-alignment betwen what I think, feel, say and do? What's right about being incongruent, and out of alignment? The answer cannot be "nothing is right" because one is choosing to be out of alignment. So...

Tough questions, but powerful questions that can initially support one to gain clarity...and in the process discover what's underneath own one's feelings of unhappiness. Then, it's about choices.

So, some honest and sincere self-reflection can point to root causes of unhappiness, perhaps depression, and lead to some deeper self-reflection on what's really important in my life (at work) and how can I best achieve harmony and balance, or at least, be aware of, and own, why I consciously choose to be out of balance and "off.".

Over the years, we've discussed the topic of lawyer happiness and unhappiness from many different angles at legal sanity. If you want to conduct a study on satisfied lawyers, you'll find enough of them to gather data on. If you want to study lawyer discontent, you'll find plenty of empirical fodder for your consideration. What would be more useful and timely for practitioners (especially newly-minted ones), law firm leaders, law students and their educators would be a new study delineating the specific factors and forces (such as meaning, money, employee engagement initiatives, leadership, client interaction, and flex-time work options) that make or break lawyer happiness today.